COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 4 August 1875)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the measure having been re-committed, it had been carefully considered by a Select Committee, who had both revised and put together the various enactments relating to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, and also incorporated in that Bill, with certain Amendments, the new proposals of the Government for effecting those alterations in the present system which he had explained on the second reading of one of the Bills that he had introduced. But there was one point which the Committee thought ought to be left to the decision of the House itself—namely, the nomination of the Gentlemen who should be appointed to act as Public 537 Works Loans Commissioners under the Bill. The Commission had existed for a great number of years, and had always held its authority under what might be called a Parliamentary title. Its Members had discharged their duties with the purest public spirit, and in a manner extremely conducive to the public interest. They had now to nominate a Commission which should undertake that work for the future; and it was, of course, the wish of the Government to obtain the services of as many as possible of the Gentlemen who had hitherto acted in that capacity. Knowing that there were some of them who wished to retire, the Government had endeavoured to find certain other names which they could recommend to the House in order to complete the number of Commissioners which they deemed desirable. He had placed on the Table the names of the Gentlemen whom he intended to propose, but he was sorry to say that, although the first name standing on the list was that of one a continuance of whose valuable assistance they had hoped to secure (Lord Overstone), he had that morning received a communication from him stating that he was unable to serve any longer as a Commissioner. It would also, he was sure, be a subject of general regret to the House not to see again at the head of the Commission the name of his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), to whom more than to anybody else the successful working of that Commission was in an especial manner due. For, he thought, 21 years his right hon. Friend had been not only a Member, but the Chairman of that Commission, and all who had had experience of its working were aware that he had been the life and soul of the Commission. It was, therefore, with extreme regret and reluctance, and after remonstrance on his part, that he had to submit to the positive decision of his right hon. Friend and refrain from placing his name before the House. At the same time he must admit that after having so long done such good service, his right hon. Friend might fairly claim to be relieved from duties which had been onerous and which promised to become even more so, and although they, perhaps, took a more sanguine view of his power and his willingness to work than he was himself disposed to do, yet 538 they must allow that he was the best judge in such a matter. Under those circumstances, the names 16 in number, which he had now to propose as Commissioners were the following:—Thomas M. Weguelin, esq., M.P., Kirkman D. Hodgson, esq., M.P., Paul Butler, esq., Thomson Hankey, esq., M.P., T. N. Hunt, esq., H. H. Vivian, esq., M.P., W. Jones Loyd, esq., Herbert Barnard, esq. Lord Napier and Ettrick, E. Harvey, esq., Lord Cottesloe, Sir Charles H. Mills, bart., M.P., Jervoise Smith, esq., Edward Howley Palmer, esq. Eight honourable T. M. Gibson, and Thomas Salt, esq., M.P. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the insertion of the above names in page 22, line 1, after the words "that is to say." MR. GOSCHEN said, he was sure that every Member in the House would unite in the expressions of regret which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the retirement from the Commission of his right hon. Colleague (Mr. Hubbard) and in the warm recognition he had accorded to the services which he had rendered. He was also convinced that all hon. Members on that side of the House, and likewise the public out-of-doors, felt the same confidence in his right hon. Colleague as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed. It was, moreover, due to the Government that he should state from that side of the House that the names proposed to be added to the Commission were perfectly unexceptionable in their character. He ventured to think that the Government had chosen the very best men who could be selected for the purpose, and that the Commission, in the discharge of the important duties entrusted to it, would command the confidence of the public.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
, in moving as an Amendment, to leave out from line 9 to line 22, both inclusive, said, he could not see that there was any ground for compensation under the circumstances, and he therefore proposed to leave out the words which would give it.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
explained that the ground for the insertion of the clause 539 was, that the Select Committee, and also the Government, felt that it was expedient that officers employed by the Commission should in future be paid by salary instead of being remunerated by fees. Under these circumstances it was felt necessary to give power to the Treasury to consider any just and fair claim that might be made for compensation, provided that if any officer had received remuneration in excess of what might be deemed to be fit and proper remuneration for the work he had performed, such excess should not in any degree be considered as entitling him to claim compensation. There was, however, no fear that the claims would be received with any excess of liberality.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
approved of the substitution of salaries for fees, and he hoped that precautions would be taken to prevent delays on the part of the salaried officers, from making delays in the inquiries for loans, which, no doubt, might result from the change in the mode of remunerating them for their labours, seeing that, to some extent, the remuneration by fees did excite men to work.

§ MR. HERMON
said, that the clause had received very careful consideration by the Select Committee.

§ MR. STEVENSON
copmlained that the Public Works Loans Commissioners had of late declined to give effect to the intentions of Parliament in their administration of the Act of 1861 for aiding harbour improvements by loans at a low rate of interest. Now, these harbours were of very great public use, especially upon the North-east Coast. Great works had been there carried out, particularly in the Tyne, yet the Commissioners had declined to lend any further sum there, except upon 5 per cent interest. Fortunately, they had been able, under the existing Acts, to appeal to the Treasury, and so to get the rate demanded by the Commissioners reduced; but that power would no longer exist under the Bill, and if the Public Works Loans Commissioners pursued the same policy as they had 540 hitherto done, harbour authorities who wanted to borrow public money would be left helpless. He did not say that the power of appealing to the Treasury ought to be maintained; but he wished to know how harbour authorities would stand in future?

§ LORD ESLINGTON
supported the view of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee. These works contributed greatly towards the saving of life, and should be looked upon as public works. There was no advantage in giving the Tyne Commissioners a loan at 5 per cent. because they could go into the market and get money at any time at that rate of interest.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER
said, the question must be decided not upon that Bill, but by an Amendment of the Harbours of Refuge Act. By 24 & 25 Vict. public authorities were enabled to borrow money from the Public Works Loans Commissioners with the sanction of the Board of Trade at rates of interest varying from 3^& to 5 per cent; but under the Bill the House would be called upon to express its opinion upon new schemes. He wished to point out that the Public Works Loans Commissioners had been invested with a certain amount of discretion, with which it was desirable not to interfere. It was true that persons who had been unable to obtain from the Commissioners so low a rate of interest as they wished had been in the habit of applying to the Treasury for more favourable terms; but the practice was one which was obviously open to abuse, and which ought not to be maintained. Parliament, in fixing the powers of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, might have omitted to make provisions which ought to have been made—in the case of the Tyne and other places it was probably intended to make a more liberal grant than the strict wording of the Act implied—and it was desirable that the question should be settled. At the same time, he hoped there would be no attempt to hamper the action or to tamper with the independence of the Commissioners. One of the objects of the present Bill was to do away with the appeal to the Treasury, which was, in fact, an appeal from an independent authority to a body which might be open to influence. If the law was not satisfactory, by all means, he would say, let it be altered; 541 but as regarded the present Bill, he hoped the independence of the Commissioners would remain unimpaired.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, the practical result of the Harbour Transfer Act was to leave to the Public Loan Commissioners the power of refusing to lend money for harbour works, except to such places as actually possessed revenues which could be pledged in payment of the interest on the money advanced, whereas the real intent of that Act was to create harbours along the coast, which when formed would yield a revenue. It also left to the Commissioners the power of charging some harbours as much as 5 per cent. and others only 3¼ per cent. and in some instances it appeared as if uniformity of treatment did not exist. The change now proposed to be made appeared to make it incumbent on the Commissioners to charge high rates of interest, such as would defeat all plans for harbour works, except such as really did not need to apply for loans, seeing that the money could be borrowed in the market. The real fact was that the great want of the country—especially Scotland—was, harbours; and, as yet, there was no proper Board to advise the Government to encourage their construction. It was to be hoped that this defect in the Act might be supplied by some improved administrative machinery to consider harbour projects. If the Bill reduced the rate of interest from 5 per cent to 3½ per cent for all harbour projects; then the change would be such as to benefit many good projects for these much-needed places for our fisheries in Scotland.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, he agreed to the Bill, on the understanding that it only confirmed existing grants, and not in the belief that they were properly considering the question.

§ MR. J. G. HUBBARD
said, the object of the Commissioners was to take an independent course, according to their discretion, so as not to make grants that would give an undue advantage to one locality over another district where the works had to be constructed with money obtained in the public market. In doing so, he maintained they had always acted strictly in accordance with their powers. If the intervention of the Treasury was to be abolished, however, he thought the conditions under which the Commis- 542 sioners advanced money might very properly be revised.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, it might be there were individual cases of hardship, and he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the discretion of the Public Works Loans Commissioners should be interfered with as little as possible, and that Parliament should discourage any pressure being put upon them. He was not sure that submitting to the House any scheme for their judgment might not have the effect' of raising constant discussions on the rival merits of rival applications, and thereby Parliamentary pressure instead of Treasury pressure might be put upon the Commissioners, which would be equally bad. He reminded those who thought they had acted too stringently that the amount of money at their disposal was not unlimited and that it was erroneous to suppose that public money could be advanced for local purposes, no matter how beneficial they were, without the credit of the Government being to some degree affected.